get_v1_1_artist_discography_overviewArtist discography overview Group: Artists. Billing per call: 1 Credits. Agents can pay per call ($0.01 via x402/MPP, no API key).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Artist ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It gives no information about side effects (likely a read-only operation), authentication needs, rate limits, or the structure of the response. The only extra details are billing and group, which are irrelevant to agent behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief but wastes words on non-essential metadata like 'Group: Artists' and 'Billing per call'. This is under-specification rather than conciseness; it fails to convey the tool's core functionality or usage in a useful way.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, no annotations, and minimal sibling differentiation, the description is severely incomplete. It offers no information about the return value, pagination, or what 'overview' means, making it inadequate for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'id' with description 'Artist ID' and an example, giving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; it neither clarifies format nor constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Artist discography overview' which clearly identifies the resource and action, but it does not specify the scope (e.g., full discography vs. albums vs. singles) or differentiate from siblings like get_v1_1_artist_albums and get_v1_1_artist_singles. It lacks the specificity needed to select it confidently over closely related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess which of the many artist-related tools is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.